Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 12 July 14 >

July 13

Category:Foreign Service brats

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 05:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Foreign Service brats
  • Nominator's rationale In the previous discussion of the deletion of Category:Military brats this was listed as one thing we do not categorize people by. The occupation of the person's parents is not a very defining thing. Beyond this, the category is needlessly Amero-centric. If this is a notable thing, then why are we only including Americans, and not all children whose parents were in any foreign service?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. By the way I guess that only Americans make this a notable thing, the expression "foreign service brat" does not exist in other languages I know, you would need a long explanation to describe the concept. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually have never heard the term, and I was good friends with a son of Gerrit W. Gong, who since he (the son) grew up in part in both Taiwan and China while his father was there on US government assignments (special assistant to the ambassador and such) he would have qualified. I have heard the term "military brat". However, the Gong cases illustrates another issue. My friend spent at most 5 years outside the US and at least 13 years in the US of his time as a minor, yet almost that whole time his father was more or less connected to the US government. During the first few years Gong may have worked full time at Johns Hopkins. A good portion of people in the foreign service work in the US, so they are not all abroad. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as as the nom of military brats.--User:Namiba 14:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As a UK person I have heard the term 'military brat' but not 'Foreign Service brat'. In any case neither seems to be defining. Oculi (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might have !voted to keep military brats, but it's hard to argue for keeping this more obscure term/grouping with that gone. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although I like the humor that created this category I don't judge it a serious contribution to our encyclopedia. Well, sometimes I miss good humor around here - producing more smile and less argy-bargy. --Just N. (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:B-Line bus

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current name is ambiguous, see B Line. This matches the name of the current primary redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Regiments of the Neapolitan Army

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. bibliomaniac15 18:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle the page SHOULDN'T be merged, the regimental category should and needs to stay, as it has nothing to do with the "political category". For instance, would you merge Category:French regiments of the Ancien Régime and Category:France? No, because they're neither the same nor similar in the manor for which is being used in these category. So, it should stay and NOT be merged. I have more articles coming for Naples soon which will expand the category.. J-Man11 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. If User:J-Man11 or others creates a total of more than 10-20 new articles on the subject of regiments of the Kingdom of Naples, the question can always be reopened. Otherwise his argument here falls afoul of WP:CRYSTAL - we cannot categorize by the promise of more articles in the future, we must categorise on what is there now.
In addition, armies are a function of their states and simply would not exist if the state did not exist. Basic axiom of state system since the Treaty of Westphalia; User:J-Man11 ought to review Westphalian sovereignty. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tulsa Oilers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category for a minor league hockey team contains only 1 article. User:Namiba 14:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:5th-century bishops in Bavaria

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, merging is not needed considering that the article has already been added to appropriate other categories (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bavaria did not exist in the 5th century. It was part of the Roman province of Rhaetia or Germania Superior. There is a single article so SmallCat also applies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Way ahead of you my friend. Had already placed it there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Peterkingiron: I've now added that person to Raetia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish physical chemists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. I have checked that the contents are in other "physical chemists" categories where this is stated in the article text. – Fayenatic London 07:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too detailed for an intersection of ethnicity and occupation. Rathfelder (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt Jewish chemists is a unique topic in its own right, but a merge is fine for now.--User:Namiba 14:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT Roman Catholic bishops

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 02:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category full of original research and speculation. It is doubtful whether all of the bishops in this category identify as gay or bisexual, especially those from centuries ago. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishops are being singled out because this is the category that was created, deleted and then recreated. I think you should check out the bios of the men listed here. Some are from the 16th century and others were accused of having a same-sex relationship of short duration. I'm not sure if their lives warrant being described by a 21st century concept like LBGT as if that sums them up or whether they should be classified based on their implied sexual preferences. I'm not saying that a broader discussion should not happen but this is the category that is under debate today and I don't think this discussion should be delayed months or even years into the future when this larger discussion gets started.
I should also state that I know gay priests and that probably gay bishops exist, too. But the question is whether these specific individuals, placed into this category, should be defined as LGBT on Wikipedia when that is not how they self-identify. I think, for these individuals, it's imposing an identity on to them. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't one enough for the category? Rembert Weakland is an out gay Catholic bishop. natemup (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you didn't read my comments. I know gay Catholic priests and that there are probably gay Catholic bishops. The question is whether they would self-identify themselves as LGBT which is a modern nomenclature and whether this could be considered defining. I hold the same view towards Category:Medieval LGBT people which isn't tied to Catholic clergy. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one bona fide, verified, out, self-identifying gay Catholic bishop. It's not a hypothetical. It's been cited above. The info has been live on Wikipedia and in the category from the get-go. This deletion proposal is ludicrous. natemup (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it , this article is offense to both lgbt people and Catholics, you have pedophiles like mcccarick on the list . Pedophila is not homosexuality and most gay people are not pedos (nor ar most pedos gay) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudmanOut (talk • contribs)

All 11 @Justus Nussbaum:? Including Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte? Does any source say that he self-identified? Does any source consist of anything but hearsay? Was he even a bishop? Not every cardinal was a bishop. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one item in the category. The other ones are alleged or never came out, and per WP:CATLGBT policy should not be inserted in this category if they did not come out as LGBT or self-identify, or if there is a scholastic consesus to define them as such. The only page that meets the criteria is Rembert Weakland. But beyond that, I see no need for this category since LGBT Catholic Clergy exists as category and there's no need for a specific one for bishops. This seems like Wikipedia:Overcategorization and WP:OCEGRS. Eccekevin (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_13&oldid=1039499704"